AR vs. Masada? (read, please)
- Thread starter Eightball
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmm... considering I am too old to serve, am not LEO and can't really see the need for full auto, it is not a decision I will ever have to make. My AR's serve me very, very well in more calibers under the rainbow than the 2 standards. No wonder I have never heard of the Masada. 
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Would I give up an existing AR for a Masada? No. As others have mentioned, the AR is a known quantity and the Masada is still an unknown quantity, as promising as it seems at the moment.
Will I be spending what I would have spent on ARs to buy multiple Masadas? Absolutely.
I've always been impressed with Magpul's design and dedication to customer service. I can't think of any products of theirs I was disappointed in and can think of more than a few that exceeded expectations.
Most of what is in the Masada has been tried and proven in other designs. The only real novel aspect is to bring all of these features together in a single package. I have a lot of faith that Magpul is a company that can do that and I think those features combined represent an improvement over the AR. I also have faith that if Magpul doesn't get it right on production, they will take care of me when they do get it right. So I am willing to step up and risk being an early adopter for this particular product.
Will I be spending what I would have spent on ARs to buy multiple Masadas? Absolutely.
I've always been impressed with Magpul's design and dedication to customer service. I can't think of any products of theirs I was disappointed in and can think of more than a few that exceeded expectations.
Most of what is in the Masada has been tried and proven in other designs. The only real novel aspect is to bring all of these features together in a single package. I have a lot of faith that Magpul is a company that can do that and I think those features combined represent an improvement over the AR. I also have faith that if Magpul doesn't get it right on production, they will take care of me when they do get it right. So I am willing to step up and risk being an early adopter for this particular product.
Ethereal
Member
The Masada's going to be big. Real big I believe, because it's the first piston type AR to be priced competitively with the DI systems. People have always wanted piston driven AR's but without the high cost of the HK, POF, Leitner-wise, and Sig 556 rifles. Throw that in together with the claiber interchangeability between 5.55, 6.8spc, 5.45, and 7.62x39 and you've got yourself an 8,000lb. gorrilla in the black rifle market. I'll keep my AR's and AK's, but for sure be picking up this thing
It will all depend on whether or not the Masada lives up to its promise. It could be he greatest thing since sliced bread. It could also suck. I imagine that, like most everything, it will be somewhere in between.
On paper? It's awesomeness given form. In prototype, it looks just as good. How good the ones are at my gunshop will be the real question. Until I know the answer to that question, my AR, AK, M1A and FAL are not going anywhere.
Oh, let's be honest. They won't be going anwhere, regardless. They just might get a new playmate.
Mike
On paper? It's awesomeness given form. In prototype, it looks just as good. How good the ones are at my gunshop will be the real question. Until I know the answer to that question, my AR, AK, M1A and FAL are not going anywhere.
Oh, let's be honest. They won't be going anwhere, regardless. They just might get a new playmate.
Mike
kentucky_smith
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,686
Looks like the love child of an AR and a FAL.
MudPuppy
Member
Trade my AR for a product that hasn't even entered production yet? Not quite that trusting/optimistic.
I do want one though--after it gets through its teething period.
I do want one though--after it gets through its teething period.
LoadedDrum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 612
I would not trade my AR's for it but it does have a few features I like such as the ambi-mag release and the stock.
I don't like how they serialized the upper. Having to swap the entire lower to use AK mags was a mistake. They should have gone the route MGI, COBB, and Robinson (M96) did where the mag well is the only thing that is swapped. Then the serial# would be in the proper spot and uppers could be swapped.
I don't like how they serialized the upper. Having to swap the entire lower to use AK mags was a mistake. They should have gone the route MGI, COBB, and Robinson (M96) did where the mag well is the only thing that is swapped. Then the serial# would be in the proper spot and uppers could be swapped.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
LoadedDrum, if you can pull the barrel and replace it without tools in seconds, why would you want to swap an upper?
As to the lower, I don't think they can design it the way MGI and others did and still use a polymer mold. Or at least an affordable polymer mold... I know that one reason they didn't include their MIAD grip product on the lower is because of added mold complexity and costs.
From a cost perspective, I imagine you can buy two polymer lowers cheaper than you can buy a single metal lower with two mag wells.
As to the lower, I don't think they can design it the way MGI and others did and still use a polymer mold. Or at least an affordable polymer mold... I know that one reason they didn't include their MIAD grip product on the lower is because of added mold complexity and costs.
From a cost perspective, I imagine you can buy two polymer lowers cheaper than you can buy a single metal lower with two mag wells.
presumably, with an "upper" you get sights/receiver/barrel all stuck together in a consistent fashion
if you just replace one of those components, say, the barrel, then also presumably you're doing it because you're changing calibers or radically changing barrel lengths, both of which would make it doubtful that your sights would still be zeroed.
if you just replace one of those components, say, the barrel, then also presumably you're doing it because you're changing calibers or radically changing barrel lengths, both of which would make it doubtful that your sights would still be zeroed.
rjohnson4405
Member
Press release says $1400 for carbine with mags. Too expensive for me but improving the ar platform (whether people think it needs it or not) is always a good thing for innovation in the industry.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
A fair criticism I guess; but as long as the barrel swap maintains a consistent zero you can always adjust your sight settings for the new barrel/caliber/etc.
However, the way I see it, you need a spare barrel, upper, and sight in order to have the convenience of just swapping the upper and being ready to roll. With an uninterrupted picatinny rail, it seems you could just as easily keep a spare sight already zeroed to the new barrel/caliber and then just swap sights when you swap barrels. From a material cost standpoint, it is actually less expensive because you don't need a spare upper. Of course, all of this assumes a swappable barrel that consistently returns to zero.
Even if you really did want to have a complete extra upper, you still can. You just have the added complications of the upper being the firearms receiver (no ordering from the mail to your doorstep for most of us).
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
The Masada isn't really an AR... though I guess you could argue it is an AR180 since it uses that operating system.
As for the $1,400 MSRP, that is certainly pricy if you only compare it to other semiautomatic rifles. If you compare it to other semi-auto rifles with the same features though, it is a great deal. To give an example, an AR15 upper with an uninterrupted, free-float rail and tool-swap barrel of similar quality runs aroud $1,489.00 just for the upper.
With the Masada, you get a complete rifle with more features for about $100 less than that. Now if you don't want those features, that isn't much consolation; but if you do, it is a heckuva deal.
yep, swapping the barrel is definitely more convenient.
heck, many optics let you switch between 3 or 4 reticles today. if there's actually some demand for swapping barrels in some sort of operational capacity, maybe it will spawn a new feature on optics that let you zero them independently so you could have a doughnut of death for your 11" barrel and turn a knob to switch to the mil-dot crosshair for your 18" SPC barrel.
heck, many optics let you switch between 3 or 4 reticles today. if there's actually some demand for swapping barrels in some sort of operational capacity, maybe it will spawn a new feature on optics that let you zero them independently so you could have a doughnut of death for your 11" barrel and turn a knob to switch to the mil-dot crosshair for your 18" SPC barrel.
With the charging handle on the left, it doesn't look as left handed friendly as an AR. If the gun turns out to be everything it's cracked up to be I'd buy one. I need an extra job. 
EDIT: Scratch the comment about not being as lefty friendly as an AR. I just took another look at the rifle and unless my eyes are deceiving me the rifle has the provision for the charging handle to be installed on either side of the rifle. Good news!
EDIT: Scratch the comment about not being as lefty friendly as an AR. I just took another look at the rifle and unless my eyes are deceiving me the rifle has the provision for the charging handle to be installed on either side of the rifle. Good news!
Last edited:
The fact you can have a folding stock is huge.
That is one of the worst parts about the AR15 set up. The stupid recoil tube in the stock, means you can't fold the stock, let alone if your stock gets trashed your gun is FUBAR.
How easy is it to crack a stock or bend a metal tube in combat?
Any of you guys broken a baseball bat or bent it slightly? That is all that is needed to turn an AR15 into a light weight club.
So the way the military solves the issue of no folding stock is to make 14.5 inch barrels....and use stronger metal tubes in the butt stock.
Shorter barrel = less muzzle velocity
This is a big deal when your round requires a certain set amount of muzzle velocity to make it pack a real punch. Especially if you have to shoot through things to hit your target (ie wind, sand, snow, jungle, walls, etc).
Never mind having to get in and out of vehicles with a rifle. Folding stocks make it so much easier.
Hey with a folding gun tankers might be able to get rifles as standard issue instead of just side arms.
That is one of the worst parts about the AR15 set up. The stupid recoil tube in the stock, means you can't fold the stock, let alone if your stock gets trashed your gun is FUBAR.
How easy is it to crack a stock or bend a metal tube in combat?
Any of you guys broken a baseball bat or bent it slightly? That is all that is needed to turn an AR15 into a light weight club.
So the way the military solves the issue of no folding stock is to make 14.5 inch barrels....and use stronger metal tubes in the butt stock.
Shorter barrel = less muzzle velocity
This is a big deal when your round requires a certain set amount of muzzle velocity to make it pack a real punch. Especially if you have to shoot through things to hit your target (ie wind, sand, snow, jungle, walls, etc).
Never mind having to get in and out of vehicles with a rifle. Folding stocks make it so much easier.
Hey with a folding gun tankers might be able to get rifles as standard issue instead of just side arms.
Shadowangel
Member
Looks interesting, and I know Magpul makes quality stuff. Not to mention the ability to swap between 7.62x39 and .223 at will, both of which calibers I have plenty of. Might have to look into that.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Taliv, I think there is already a market for that. A lot of the cheaper optics makers offer a multiple reticle option already... you would think someone would come out with your proposal
You can place the charging handle on either side. User-preference.
It is a trade off, like most other things in life. Having a buffer directly behind the bolt carrier group means better recoil reduction. Unfortunately it also means no folding stock.
I don't think the durability is much of an issue either way. Anything that will bend or break a buffer tube is likely to be fairly hard on a gas piston as well.
trbon8r said:
You can place the charging handle on either side. User-preference.
REOIV said:
It is a trade off, like most other things in life. Having a buffer directly behind the bolt carrier group means better recoil reduction. Unfortunately it also means no folding stock.
I don't think the durability is much of an issue either way. Anything that will bend or break a buffer tube is likely to be fairly hard on a gas piston as well.
well, i for one would love it, because i shoot a combination of
remanufactured M193 for blasting and high-volume carbine classes
handloaded sierra 69g and 80g for long-range accuracy
100g for SD @ high velocity and subsonic velocity
so that's 5 rounds i shoot out of the same AR15 that all print different point of impacts. and people wonder why i keep a log
seriously, i'd love a more accommodating optic
LoadedDrum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 612
No QC barrel holds zero as well as changing uppers. Some are so good that you will not notice a change in zero within 150 yrds but beyond that the difference becomes quite visible. Swapping optics has the same problem but not nearly as severe thanks to Mr Larue. FWIW, I like the QC barrel as feature still because it allows replacing the barrel without armorer's tools.
For what its worth I do not like the idea of a polymer lower. When the lower is made super light the balance of the gun shifts forward. Look at what happened with the 556 vs the 551. SIG went to an aluminum lower supposedly to save weight but the 556 is still heavier than the 551 and the balance is skewed forward. Hopefully the Masada will be better balanced.
- Status